JOINT POWERS FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA PACKET 9-15-26

43 Loss of Tax-Exemption As discussed under the caption “TAX MATTERS,” interest on the 2026 Bonds could become includable in gross income for purposes of federal income taxation retroactive to the date the 2026 Bonds were issued, as a result of future acts or omissions of the Authority or City in violation of its covenants in the Installment Sale Agreement and Indenture. Should such an event of taxability occur, the 2026 Bonds are not subject to special redemption and will remain outstanding until maturity or until redeemed under other provisions set forth in the Indenture. Proposition 218 General. On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218, the so- called “Right to Vote on Taxes Act.” Proposition 218 added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the State Constitution, which affect the ability of local governments to levy and collect both existing and future taxes, assessments, and property-related fees and charges. Proposition 218, which generally became effective on November 6, 1996, limited local governments’ authority to impose or increase property-related “fee” or “charge,” which is defined as “any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax or an assessment, imposed by a local government upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including user fees or charges for a property related service” (and referred to in this section as a “property-related fee or charge”). Specifically, under Article XIIID, before a municipality may impose or increase any property-related fee or charge, the entity must give written notice to the record owner of each parcel of land affected by that fee or charge. The municipality must then hold a hearing upon the proposed imposition or increase at least 45 days after the written notice is mailed, and, if a majority of the property owners of the identified parcels present written protests against the proposal, the municipality may not impose or increase the property-related fee or charge. Further, under Article XIIID, revenues derived from a property-related fee or charge may not exceed the funds required to provide the “property-related service” and the entity may not use such fee or charge for any purpose other than that for which it imposed the fee or charge. The amount of a property-related fee or charge may not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel, and no property-related fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or is immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. In addition, Article XIIIC states that “the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives.” Judicial Interpretation of Proposition 218. After Proposition 218 was enacted in 1996, appellate court cases and an Attorney General’s opinion initially indicated that fees and charges for water and wastewater services, which are based on the amount of services consumed, would not be considered property-related fees and charges, and thus not subject to the requirements of Article XIIID. However, numerous subsequent court cases have held that certain types of water and wastewater charges could be subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. These cases include, for example, Capistrano Taxpayers Assoc., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 (Cal. App. 4th Distr. 2015)), Bighorn-Desert View Page 171 of 205